Community Colleges Count

Achieving the Dream

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSESSIX POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE STEM STUDENT ASPIRATIONS AND SUCCESS WHILE DECREASING RACIAL AND INCOME GAPS

By Lara K. Couturier and Jenna Cullinane | MAY 2015

Jobs for the Future works with our partners to

design and drive the adoption of education and

career pathways leading from college readiness

to career advancement for those struggling to

succeed in today’s economy. Across the country,

we work to improve the pathways leading from high

school to college to family-supporting careers. Our

work aligns education and training to ensure that

employers have access to a skilled workforce.

WWW.JFF.ORG

Jobs for the Future’s Postsecondary State

Policy initiatives help states and their community

colleges to dramatically increase the number of

students who earn high-value credentials. We lead

a multistate collaboration committed to advancing

state policy agendas that accelerate community

college student success and completion. Our

network includes states that are continuing their

work with support from Achieving the Dream,

Completion by Design, and Student Success Center

initiatives.

WWW.JFF.ORG/POST-STATE-POLICY

The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable

Trust aspires to improve lives by supporting

exceptional nonprofits and other mission-aligned

organizations in the U.S. and around the world

in health, selected place-based initiatives, and

education and human services.

We strive to make a meaningful impact in these

areas, employing not only our significant financial

assets, but also a rigorous and results-oriented

approach and a keen understanding of the relevant

issues, needs and opportunities.

WWW.HELMSLEYTRUST.ORG

The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of

Texas at Austin works with our nation’s education

systems to ensure that every student leaves school

prepared for success in postsecondary education

and the contemporary workplace.

Our work, based on research and two decades

of experience, focuses on K–16 mathematics

and science education with an emphasis on

strategies for improving student engagement,

motivation, persistence, and achievement. We

develop innovative curricula, tools, protocols,

and instructional supports and deliver powerful

instructional and leadership development.

WWW.UTDANACENTER.ORG

Achieving the Dream, Inc. is a national nonprofit

that is dedicated to helping more community

college students, particularly low-income students

and students of color, stay in school and earn a

college certificate or degree. Evidence-based,

student-centered, and built on the values of equity

and excellence, Achieving the Dream is closing

achievement gaps and accelerating student

success nationwide by: 1) guiding evidence-based

institutional improvement, 2) leading policy

change, 3) generating knowledge, and 4) engaging

the public. Conceived as an initiative in 2004 by

Lumina Foundation and seven founding partner

organizations, today, Achieving the Dream is leading

the most comprehensive non-governmental reform

network for student success in higher education

history. With over 200 institutions, more than 100

coaches and advisors, and 15 state policy teams—

working throughout 34 states and the District of

Columbia—the Achieving the Dream National Reform

Network helps nearly 4 million community college

students have a better chance of realizing greater

economic opportunity and achieving their dreams.

WWW.ACHIEVINGTHEDREAM.ORG

PHOTOGRAPHY ©2011 Michael Stravato

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lara K. Couturier leads research and publications

for JFF’s Postsecondary State Policy work. She also

supports the state policy teams in these initiatives.

Before JFF, Dr. Couturier conducted research and

evaluations for Achieving the Dream and other

higher education initiatives. She also served as

the interim principal investigator and director of

research for the Futures Project: Policy for Higher

Education in a Changing World, a higher education

think tank based at Brown University. She has a

Ph.D. in history from Brown University.

Jenna Cullinane serves as strategic policy lead

for higher education initiatives at The Charles

A. Dana Center, at The University of Texas at

Austin. She works primarily on policy, evaluation,

and scaling for the community college New

Mathways Project. Jenna’s recent research topics

include time to degree, high-school-to-college

transitions, developmental education, scaling

educational innovations, STEM (science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics) education, and

improving the success of underserved student

populations in higher education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following

colleagues for their participation in interviews,

discussions, and reviews to inform this brief:

Susan Wood, Higher Education Consultant and

Professor Emeritus, Reynolds Community College;

Debra Stuart, Vice Chancellor for Educational

Partnerships, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher

Education; Carlos Santiago, Senior Deputy

Commissioner for Academic Affairs, Massachusetts

Department of Higher Education; David Cedrone,

Associate Commissioner for Economic and

Workforce Development, Massachusetts Department

of Higher Education; John Rand, Director of STEM

Education, University of Hawai’i; Mary Harrill,

Associate Director, Programs and Policy, Achieving

the Dream, Inc.; Casey Sacks, Grant Project

Manager, Colorado Community College System; and

Helen Burn, Mathematics Faculty, Highline College.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

WHEREAREDIFFERENTIATEDMATHPATHWAYS

WORKINGWELL? 3

WHATISTHEMISMATCHBETWEENDIFFERENTIATED

MATHPATHWAYSANDEXISTINGMATHPLACEMENT

POLICIES? 6

RECOMMENDATIONS 8

Recommendation 1: Begin the placement support

process early to ensure entering students are ready for

college-level math. 9

Recommendation 2: Use multiple factors to determine

whether students are placed into developmental courses

and which developmental or gateway courses are most

appropriate. 9

Recommendation 3: Require testmakers to align

placement tests with differentiated math pathways and

improve their predictive value. 10

Recommendation 4: Strengthen the role of student

supports—especially advising—in the placement process. 10

Recommendation 5: Prioritize student academic and

career goals in the placement process. 11

Recommendation 6: Create a bridging mechanism from

non-algebra pathways into algebra pathways. 11

CONCLUSION 12

ENDNOTES 13

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSESvi

This call to action is based on a simple but important premise: The nation cannot allow placement policies,

processes, and instruments to undermine promising efforts to increase student success in mathematics

and increase attainment of STEM credentials. Efforts to redesign math pathways hold great promise for

improving the teaching and learning experiences of students who need college algebra—many of whom are

STEM students—and helping those students persist toward and maintain STEM aspirations. But placement

policies, processes, and instruments have not kept pace with math redesign efforts.

The nation needs more students prepared for STEM jobs—particularly low-income students, students of

color, and underprepared students who historically have not had equitable access to preparation for and

on-ramps to well-paying, dynamic STEM careers. To meet this need, mathematics course pathways must be

a lever for helping students maintain and even increase their STEM aspirations. At the moment, however,

far too many math courses—especially developmental math courses—serve as a serious obstacle and even

deterrent to STEM-interested students seeking STEM credentials.

In response, many colleges and state policymakers are creating differentiated developmental and gateway

math pathways. The goal is to target the math needs of particular academic programs and then improve

teaching, learning, and support in those differentiated math classes. In the end, students who need

algebra—many of whom are STEM students—will be in a redesigned math class better customized to their

needs. Similarly, students in programs that do not require college algebra can take an alternative pathway—

such as statistics or quantitative reasoning—that is better suited to their programs’ needs.

Many colleges and states are implementing differentiated math pathways, but placement policies,

processes, and supports have not kept up with the pace of change. As a result, students are being placed

into math classes through methods that do not align with the content of, or that do not effectively predict

or support success in, differentiated math pathways. Some of the workarounds in place may in fact be

closing the door to STEM opportunities for students.

This call to action is designed to encourage states and colleges to analyze and revise their math placement

policies, processes, and supports to ensure that STEM-interested students are properly placed into an on-

ramp leading to well-taught math courses that maintain—and even increase—their STEM aspirations.

STEM careers offer a wage premium and solid career advancement, but low-income students and students of color remain highly underrepresented in STEM programs and professions. African

Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans comprised 28.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2006 but only 9.1 percent of college-educated

individuals employed in science and engineering occupations.

In the end, students who need algebra—many of whom are STEM students—will be in a redesigned math class better

customized to their needs.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 1

INTRODUCTION

Low-income students and students of color enroll disproportionately

at community colleges, making community colleges one of the

nation’s key levers for opening educational opportunities and reducing

class and racial imbalances in this nation’s systems of educational

attainment, career advancement, and wealth accumulation. In STEM

fields, community colleges educate students for a group of robust jobs

promising premium wages and requiring subbaccalaureate credentials,

often referred to as middle-skill STEM.1 Low-income students and

students of color remain highly underrepresented in STEM programs

and professions, however. According to the National Academy

of Sciences, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans

comprised 28.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2006 but only 9.1

percent of college-educated individuals employed in science and

engineering occupations.2

To increase the pipeline of students entering STEM careers and to

improve equity in STEM, the nation needs more students to aspire to

STEM and then persist in and complete their STEM programs. At the

Associate’s degree level, 20 percent of students choose a STEM major

at some point in their academic careers. But attrition rates in STEM

are unacceptably high. The U.S. Department of Education reports

that 69 percent of Associate’s degree-seeking students who entered

STEM fields between 2003 and 2009 dropped out of a STEM pathway

by spring 2009; roughly half of those students left college altogether

without earning a degree or certificate.3

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES2

STEM experts agree that math is a primary

hurdle for STEM students. Developmental math

in particular has been singled out as what some

refer to as a “burial ground” for students. Over 60

percent of incoming community college students

are placed into at least one developmental math

course. Unfortunately, only 20 percent of those

students successfully complete any college-level

course within three years.4 For underprepared

STEM-intending students, the path from

developmental courses to college algebra and

eventually to the advanced mathematics required

for many STEM degrees is a marathon few survive.

In response, a growing number of states and

colleges are making a seismic shift: creating

developmental math pathways that target the

math needs of particular academic programs, also

known as “differentiated math pathways,” and

then dramatically accelerating and improving the

teaching and learning in those pathways.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 3

WHERE ARE DIFFERENTIATED MATH PATHWAYS WORKING WELL?

Colleges in Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Colorado,

and Nevada are making the transition to differentiated math pathways

with significant support from the New Mathways Project (NMP) at The

Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin. Other

groups of colleges are doing similar work with key partners in the field

through the California Acceleration Project (CAP) and the Community

College Pathways program (Statway®/Quantway®) at the Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT). In addition,

some states—including Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Oklahoma—

have undertaken local math curricular initiatives and analyses, with

expertise drawn from NMP, CAP, and CFAT, and arrived at their own

versions of differentiated math pathways.

The New Mathways Project—a co-author of this call to action—is an

evidence-based redesign of college math courses and sequences to

successfully move students through both developmental and college-

level math in no more than one year.5 Central to the NMP model are

the principles of aligning math courses with program requirements,

acceleration, and teaching student success skills alongside math skills.

The New Mathways Project is building curricular resources to support

three differentiated pathways: statistical reasoning, quantitative

reasoning, and STEM-Prep (see Figure 1). Developmental students—

regardless of pathway—begin by taking two co-requisite courses: 1)

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES4

Foundations of Mathematical Reasoning, which

builds the mathematical skills and understanding

necessary for success in a quantitative literacy,

statistics, or algebra course and 2) Frameworks

for Mathematics and Collegiate Learning, which

teaches concepts from the learning sciences to help

developmental math students acquire the strategies

and tenacity necessary to succeed in mathematics,

in other college coursework, and in their future

careers and lives as citizens.

Depending on career interests, students then

branch into an appropriate college-level course:

> Statistical Reasoning: This college-level course

in the statistics pathway is designed for students

with majors in the humanities or social sciences,

where statistics may be relevant to career goals.

> Quantitative Reasoning: This college-level

course in the quantitative literacy pathway

serves students focused on developing

quantitative literacy skills that will be meaningful

for their professional, civic, and personal lives.

> STEM-Prep Pathway: The STEM-Prep pathway

prepares students to enter the calculus track or

technical programs that require strong algebraic

skills.6 This intensive pathway improves upon

the traditional algebra sequence through its

backward design from calculus, focus on critical

thinking and reasoning skills, and application of

mathematics to rich STEM contexts.

The goals of differentiated math pathways like the

New Mathways Project include ensuring that:

> Students take courses relevant to and

appropriate for their career goals.

> For all students, teaching and learning are

improved within math courses. Students

interested in a STEM program that requires

algebra will experience an improved teaching and

learning experience that helps them successfully

complete their academic requirements while

maintaining their interests and aspirations in

STEM. At the same time, students interested in

academic programs that do not require algebra

are not unnecessarily stymied by college algebra

if they will not need or use it later.8

> Students move more quickly into and through

college-level mathematics.

> Students complete courses and sequences at

significantly higher rates.

> Pedagogy and content are research based.

> Wraparound supports that encourage persistence

and success are integrated into students’

mathematics experiences.

“I don’t know about you but I haven’t done a quadratic equation in a long time, nor have I used one in my job as a college president. So one of the challenges at LaGuardia is we are trying to rethink: Do we really need that kind of math? Could a college-level statistics course be better for

[some students]?” —Gail Mellow, President, LaGuardia Community College7

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 5

Promising Results from Several Differentiated Math Pathways Models

In 2012–2013, 52 percent of students in Statway® completed the full pathway and received college

credit in one year, compared to 5.9 percent of non-Statway® developmental math students at a

group of 18 colleges implementing Statway®: “Statway® students experienced over triple the

success rate of students in traditional courses (52 percent versus 15.1 percent) in half the time (one

versus two years).”9

In 2011–2012, 38 percent of developmental students in accelerated pathways supported by the

California Acceleration Project completed a college-level statistics course in one year, compared

to 12 percent of students in traditional sequences. At these 16 participating institutions, CAP

students’ odds of completing a college-level math course were 4.5 times greater after controlling for

differences in student characteristics.10

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reports that 26 percent of students in traditional

developmental courses in 2012 completed their developmental education requirements and 4

percent completed a college-level math course in one year, while descriptive statistics from MDRC’s

evaluation of the New Mathways Project indicate 65 percent of students in NMP courses completed

their developmental education requirements and 30 percent completed a college-level math course

in one year. Among students who participated in high-fidelity NMP programs, 49 percent completed a

college-level math course in one year.

Quantitative Reasoning

MATH 1322

Statistical Reasoning

MATH 1442 or 1342Frameworks for Mathematics

and Collegiate Learning

EDUC 1300 or PSYC 1300

Rec

omm

ende

d to

be

take

n co

ncur

rent

ly

STEM-Prep Pathway

Reasoning with

Functions I*

Aligned with MATH 1314/1414

5 contact hours**

Reasoning with

Functions II*

MATH 2412

Foundations of

Mathematical Reasoning

Students enter Calculus sequence

Non-transferable courses (1 term)

Transferable courses (1 term)

* working title

** TBD: structure for the contact hours

Figure 1. Structure of the New Mathways Project

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES6

WHAT IS THE MISMATCH BETWEEN DIFFERENTIATED MATH PATHWAYS AND EXISTING MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES?

The states and colleges implementing differentiated math pathways

are ahead of the curve, embracing and implementing a strategy with

a growing evidence base for improving outcomes for developmental

math students. Still, there remain significant concerns: How do

colleges help students choose the appropriate math pathway? Are

math placement policies and processes keeping up with the move to

differentiated math pathways? Are placement workarounds diverting

STEM-interested students into math pathways that do not meet the

requirements of their intended STEM program? If a student begins in

a non-algebra math pathway, such as statistics, can she switch to a

program requiring algebra later? If so, what systems and supports are

in place to help her bridge to a new program and meet the algebraic

math requirements?

Are placement workarounds diverting STEM-interested students into math pathways that do not meet the requirements of their intended STEM programs?

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 7

At the moment, the processes and policies that

drive student math placement and the content

and intent of differentiated math pathways are

misaligned in at least the following ways:

> Some states and colleges implementing

differentiated math pathways have developed

damaging workarounds in the absence of

redesigned placement policies. Of particular

concern is the use of cut scores as a means

of differentiating eligibility for algebra-based

pathways—in other words, students with low

placement test scores are told they must go

into a non-algebra-based pathway, effectively

shutting them out of many STEM pathways.

> States and colleges are using existing advising

schemes and placement instruments that do not

reflect the differentiated content inherent in

differentiated math pathways. Advisors regularly

recommend college algebra or algebra-based

developmental course sequences as a default

for all students and all majors regardless of

students’ academic or career interests and the

math preparation best suited to them. Almost

all existing placement instruments are algebra

based and do not adequately assess students for

statistics or quantitative reasoning pathways.

> Student-advisor ratios in community colleges are

far too low, often due to inadequate funding. As a

result, students typically do not receive the level

of advising necessary to help them make good

choices among differentiated math pathways.

> Students articulate program choices late in

their academic careers and thus rarely have

the information needed to understand and

adequately prepare for math requirements.

> A differentiated math pathway is designed as an

on-ramp to an intended program of study, but

all too often developmental math is positioned

instead as a one-size-fits-all hurdle students

must clear before they enter relevant credit-

bearing courses.11

A Comprehensive Definition of Placement

The term “placement” often refers narrowly to the assignment of students to college courses

according to an examination of student mathematics, reading, and writing skills. For the purposes

of this brief, we recommend a more comprehensive definition of “placement” as an informed and

well-rounded process that is intentionally supported by educators, advisors, and students and based

upon information about student goals, prior academic experiences, outside-of-school obligations,

attitudes, beliefs, and an assessment of academic skills.

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES8

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Postsecondary State Policy Network, led by Jobs for the Future in

conjunction with the Achieving the Dream National Reform Network,

is a multi-state collaboration committed to identifying and advancing

state policies that accelerate community college student success and

completion. Seven states in the Postsecondary State Policy Network

participate in a Cross-State STEM Workgroup (Connecticut, Florida,

Hawaii, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia). The experiences

and expertise of the Cross-State STEM Workgroup, in collaboration

with experts from The Charles A. Dana Center, Jobs for the Future,

and Achieving the Dream, inform the policy recommendations that

follow.

The Postsecondary State Policy Network’s Cross-State STEM Workgroup

With generous support from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust,

and run by JFF in collaboration with the Achieving the Dream National Reform

Network, the Cross-State STEM Workgroup is focused on identifying a policy agenda

and building statewide capacity to facilitate the adoption and scale of middle-

skill STEM pathways. The expertise and experiences of Workgroup participants

were critical to the development of this call to action. Participating state lead

organizations are:

> Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education

> Florida College System

> Massachusetts Department of Higher Education

> Ohio Association of Community Colleges

> Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

> University of Hawai’i Community Colleges

> Virginia Community College System

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 9

The following recommendations are designed to

ensure that:

> The processes, policies, and supports that drive

student math placement align with the content

and intent of differentiated math pathways to

improve student success among all entering

students based on their academic goals.

> Students who are underprepared when entering

community colleges are not shut out of STEM

programs due to poor placement processes.

In particular, the recommendations focus on

ensuring that community colleges are increasing

the STEM pipeline of low-income students and

students of color, who enroll disproportionately

at our community colleges but remain

underrepresented in STEM careers.

> STEM-aspiring students receive the advising,

supports, and preparation needed to help them

persist toward and complete STEM pathways.

While these recommendations are focused on

improving the success of STEM-aspiring students,

they should produce positive results for all

students.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Begin the placement support process early to

ensure entering students are ready for college-

level math.

Reach back to high schools, reengagement

programs, and Adult Basic Education and put

in place processes for making it very clear to

students—as early as possible—what they need to

do to be ready for college-level math. Students

interested in a STEM program that requires algebra

should understand and be actively working on

meeting that math requirement. Examples of

strategies that states and colleges can pursue

include:

> High school coaches: Placing coaches in

high schools who counsel students on career

interests and then advise them on their math

requirements.

> Early assessment: Providing opportunities for

students to take college placement exams early,

understand their scores, brush up on skills, and

re-test.12

» In high schools, this is often done as early as

10th grade.

» For older adults, placement test review

opportunities can be provided in collaboration

with Adult Basic Education providers, One

Stop Career Centers, and community-based

organizations.

> Summer bridge or STEM Starter Academies:

Providing intensive math courses during the

summer before students enroll in college.13

> Comprehensive intake: Putting in place a

comprehensive intake process that includes

advising with integrated career counseling;

placement test awareness, preparation, and

re-test options; and educational planning.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Use multiple factors—such as a combination

of career and academic goals, non-cognitive

assessments, high school transcripts, and

assessment scores—to determine whether

students are placed into developmental courses

and to determine which developmental or

gateway courses are most appropriate.

Research suggests that existing placement

instruments alone are not good predictors

of student success in college, and that other

measures, such as high school GPA, can work as

well if not better for determining student placement

into developmental education.14 In reaction, many

states and colleges are shifting placement practices

to include:

> Cognitive and non-cognitive measures: Many

colleges are supplementing placement tests with

assessments of students’ motivation, grit, life

experiences, and prior learning.15

> High school performance: Particularly for recent

high school graduates, evaluate high school

coursework and performance to complement or

replace the need for additional assessment.

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES10

> Holistic advising: Provide a holistic

advising session that results in a placement

recommendation that takes into account

career interests, prior learning, attitudes about

technology, academic performance, assessments,

motivation, commitment to a program of

study, and outside-of-school obligations. Both

course content and delivery modality should be

considered in placement.

> Acceleration and co-requisite placement: Place

students who are near college ready into college-

level courses with supplemental instruction

to help them avoid the length and cost of

developmental education.16

RECOMMENDATION 3

Require test makers to align placement tests

with differentiated math pathways and improve

their predictive value, even as states move

toward using multiple measures of placement.

There will never be the perfect assessment

instrument, but existing assessments often do

not reflect differentiated content—and especially

not content that would help place a student in a

statistics or quantitative reasoning pathway. Test

makers should develop appropriate questions

in their test banks, working collaboratively with

both mathematicians and representatives of

other disciplines (e.g., business and chemistry). A

collective demand from states that test makers

add in modifications would go a long way toward

improving the suite of measures at colleges’

disposal.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Strengthen the role of student supports—

especially advising—in the placement process.

Orientation, advising, and assessment services are

key supports for accurate and equitable placements

that help students make good program choices,

determine their developmental and college-level

math needs, and select courses that will count

toward their intended programs. Students’ goals

and needs should drive the process of choosing

courses and/or academic pathways. While this

is true for all students, it is especially true for

those STEM students who need to successfully

complete algebra to move on in their pathway.17 A

process facilitated by advisors, counselors, faculty,

and student-centered print or technology-based

supports should help students register for and

succeed in the courses they need to achieve their

career interests. Examples of strategies that states

and colleges can pursue include:

> One door: College leaders are realizing that

students are treated very differently depending

on how they enter the college (e.g., direct from

high school, via a One Stop, or into a credit or

noncredit program). In reaction, many colleges

are redesigning student intake to ensure that

all students—regardless of entry point—receive a

consistent and comprehensive set of services.

> Assess (and strengthen) institutional capacity

for advising and supports: Institutions would

benefit from a rigorous internal analysis of

their capacity to expand advising and support

underprepared students with aspirations for

STEM. Colleges with strong supports in place are

likely to be more willing and able to encourage

underprepared students to access pathways

that lead to the exciting careers and solid wages

offered by STEM.

> Frequent and regular advising that integrates

career and academic interests: Many colleges

are embedding career advising into academic

advising sessions to ensure that students are

choosing programs and courses aligned with

their long-term interests.18 In addition, advising

support should not end after initial course

selection. Some colleges allow students to work

with mathematics faculty and advising staff to

move into more or less advanced courses early in

a semester based on student feedback about how

well courses are meeting their needs.

> Professional development and engagement:

Differentiated math pathways and their

implications for placement represent a

significant change to traditional practice

in community colleges. Engage advisors,

administrators, and faculty in understanding

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 11

the rationale for differentiated math pathways

and devising new placement processes and be

sure to attend to professional learning needs.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Prioritize student academic and career goals in

the placement process.

In particular, keep STEM-aspiring students on STEM

pathways. If a student declares the intent or desire

to enter a STEM program, then colleges should

make every effort to help that student enroll in and

complete a STEM program. Examples of strategies

that states and colleges can pursue include:

> Broad career clusters: Create cohorts of

students grouped by their broad program

interests, often referred to as meta-majors,

communities of interest, career clusters, or

broad program streams. Career clusters are a

set of courses that meet academic requirements

across a broad discipline grouping—such as

health sciences, business, or education—to

guide students through their early academic

requirements. Student supports and career

services are then aligned with the career cluster,

and students experience both a cohort of like-

minded students and faculty interactions aligned

with their career interests. Colleges can align

default recommendations about differentiated

math pathways to career clusters. If an entering

student declares a broad program stream such as

information technology or allied health, her math

requirements will be more easily identifiable to

both student and advisor. Career clusters also

facilitate early decision-making about programs

of study and provide structure and support for

students who begin college undecided about

their majors.

> Academic momentum in math: The likelihood

of student persistence in STEM programs is

positively associated with taking math courses

earlier in the academic career, taking more

advanced math courses within the first year of

enrollment, and earning a good grade in the

first math course.19 Colleges should advise

students accordingly and provide supplementary

instruction options that help students access

college-level material as early as possible with

just-in-time math supports.

> Varying levels of readiness: Support

differentiated math pathways placement

wherever students fall in the readiness

continuum (i.e., regardless of whether a

student’s assessment results indicate the need

for developmental education, are near the

developmental education cut score, or suggest

the student is ready for college-level courses).

Students may begin at different places in

developmental and gateway math sequences

depending on their program of study pathway.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Create a bridging mechanism from non-algebra

pathways to algebra pathways.

Even with the most robust placement processes and

policies, some students will change their program

choices in ways that affect which math course is

needed for their majors. Evidence from system-wide

data in Georgia suggests most changes of major

occur within a broad program stream, such as social

science, in which math course requirements are the

same.20 Although switching into a STEM major late

in one’s academic career is less common, the nation

needs more students to choose STEM programs;

colleges must be ready to support students through

program shifts. Colleges and states need to design

a means of helping a student who began in a non-

algebra pathway to bridge into an algebra pathway

later.

Bridging mechanisms have not been robust enough

to date. One solution is to create a competency-

based college-level algebra course. Students

would progress at their own pace through content

that supports the development of the essential

procedural manipulation and algebraic reasoning

skills that are essential for pursing math-intensive

STEM fields. Content learned already through other

courses would undergird, and hopefully accelerate,

their progress. We hope this call to action will kick

off further innovation in this area.

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES12

CONCLUSION

Efforts to redesign math pathways hold great potential for improving

teaching and learning. Ideally, this will improve success for those

students who need college algebra—many of whom are STEM

students—while also helping students who do not need college algebra

to complete college math requirements more quickly and successfully

through alternatives such as statistics and quantitative reasoning.

Furthermore, expanding the pipeline of low-income students and

students of color into middle-skill STEM careers offers an opportunity

to improve equity in our society. But at the moment, placement

policies and processes are out of sync with reform trends and may in

fact be diverting STEM-interested students from STEM pathways and

further undermining equity.

We hope this call to action will kick off an important national

conversation followed by state and college changes to assessment and

placement policies, processes, and supports.

For further information, please contact Lara Couturier at lcouturier@jff.org or

Jenna Cullinane at jenna.cullinane@austin.utexas.edu.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE 13

ENDNOTES

1 Rothwell, Jonathan. 2013. The Hidden STEM Economy. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution.

2 National Research Council. 2011. Expanding Underrepresented

Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the

Crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; See also

Dodson, Angela P. 2013. “STEM Education is Important to Our Future.”

Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. Vol. 29, No. 26.

3 Chen, Xianglei. 2013. STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths

Into and Out of STEM Fields. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics.

4 Bailey, Thomas, Dong Wook Jeong, & Sung-Woo Cho. 2010. “Referral,

Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental Education Sequences in

Community Colleges.” Economics of Education Review. Vol. 29, No. 2.

April.

5 Charles A. Dana Center. 2012. The New Mathways Project:

Implementation Guide (Version 1.2). Austin, TX: University of Texas at

Austin.

6 STEM-prep is a useful and oft-used shorthand, but it is important

to note that not all STEM programs require an algebra-based math

pathway. Similarly, not all programs that require algebra and/or

calculus are STEM programs (e.g., business).

7 Bracken, Kassie. “The Art of the Degree.” New York Times.

Video. Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/nyregion/

community-college-students-face-a-very-long-road-to-graduation.html

A CALL TO ACTION TO IMPROVE MATH PLACEMENT POLICIES AND PROCESSES14

8 The New Mathways Project. Summer 2014. “The

NMP’s Four Guiding Principles: Selected Supporting

Research.” Accessed at: http://www.utdanacenter.

org/wp-content/uploads/nmp_guiding_principles_

annotated_bibliography_2014june23.pdf; Bryk,

Tony & Uri Treisman. 2011. “Make Math a Gateway,

Not a Gatekeeper.” Chronicle of Higher Education,

April 18, 2010; Shaughnessy, J. Michael. “Endless

Algebra—The Deadly Pathway from High School

Mathematics to College Mathematics.” NCTM

Summing Up. Accessed August 18, 2014 at http://

www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-

the-President/Archive/J_-Michael-Shaughnessy/

Endless-Algebra—the-Deadly-Pathway-from-High-

School-Mathematics-to-College-Mathematics/

9 Van Campen, James, Nicole Sowers, & Scott

Strother. 2013. Community College Pathways: 2012-

2013 Descriptive Report. Stanford, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

10 Hayward, Craig & Terrence Willett. 2014.

Curricular Redesign and Gatekeeper Completion:

A Multi-College Evaluation of the California

Acceleration Project. Sacramento, CA: The RP

Group.

11 Bailey, Thomas, Nikki Edgecombe, & Davis

Jenkins. 2014. Redesigning the College Intake

Process as an On-Ramp to a Program of Study. New

York, NY: Community College Research Center,

Teachers College, Columbia University (CCRC).

12 See, for example: http://www.calstate.edu/EAP/

13 See, for example: http://www.mass.edu/stem/

initiatives/stemacademy.asp

14 Burdman, Pamela. 2012. Where to Begin? The

Evolving Role of Placement Exams for Students

Starting College, Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future;

Belfield, Clive & Peter Crosta. 2012. Predicting

Success in College: The Importance of Placement

Tests and High School Transcripts. CCRC Working

Paper No. 42. New York, NY: CCRC; Hughes,

Katherine L. & Judith Scott-Clayton. 2010.

Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community

Colleges; Judith Scott-Clayton. 2012. Do High-

Stakes Placement Exams Predict College Success?

CCRC Working Paper No. 41. New York, NY: CCRC;

Venezia, Andrea, Kathy Reeves Bracco, & Thad

Nodine. 2010. One Shot Deal? Students’ Perceptions

of Assessment and Course Placement in California’s

Community Colleges. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

15 Hodara, Michelle, Shanna Smith Jaggars,

& Melinda Mechur Karp. 2012. Improving

Developmental Education Assessment and

Placement: Lessons From Community Colleges

Across the Country. CCRC Working Paper No. 51.

New York, NY: CCRC.

16 Charles A. Dana Center, Complete College

America, Inc., Education Commission of the States

and Jobs for the Future. 2012. Core Principles

for Transforming Remedial Education: A Joint

Statement. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

17 As noted earlier, not all STEM fields require

college algebra.

18 Karp, Melinda Mechur. 2013. Entering a Program:

Helping Students Make Academic and Career

Choices. CCRC Working Paper No. 59). New York,

NY: CCRC.

19 Chen, Xianglei. 2013. STEM Attrition: College

Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics.

20 Research conducted by The Charles A. Dana

Center. Email from Jenna Cullinane, January 21,

2015.

TEL 617.728.4446 FAX 617.728.4857 info@jff.org

88 Broad Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 (HQ)122 C Street, NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001505 14th Street, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612

WWW.JFF.ORG

TEL 240.450.0075 FAX 240.450.0076

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 450, Silver Spring, MD 20910

WWW.ACHIEVINGTHEDREAM.ORG

TEL512.471.6190FAX512.232.1855danaweb@austin.utexas.edu

1616GuadalupeStreet,Suite3.206,Austin,TX78701

WWW.UTDANACENTER.ORG